SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

property was not registered in his name. However, after taking into consideration the provisions of section 54F, the ld. CIT (A) found that the only condition for claiming exemption under section 54F is that the asset transferred is long term capital asset, not being a residential house. The assessee has not transferred a residential house but a long term capital

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

property was not registered in his name. However, after taking into consideration the provisions of section 54F, the ld. CIT (A) found that the only condition for claiming exemption under section 54F is that the asset transferred is long term capital asset, not being a residential house. The assessee has not transferred a residential house but a long term capital

SHREE RAM COLLOIDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshree Ram Colloids Private Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax (1), Jodhpur C-79, Mia, Phase-Ii, Jodhpur- 342 005 Pan: Aakcs5803L Appellant Respondent

54,204.12 was treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, which was not considered by the Ld.AO, by invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us by challenging the revisional order. 3. The Ld.AR argued and filed a paper book spanning pages 1 to 467, which is kept

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

54,00,000 2,45,175 - 83,17,332 Oct-16 83,17,332 12,500 27,00,000 5,25,538 18,25,000 86,79,294 Nov-16 86,79,294 - - 45,700 80,00,000 6,33,594 Total 32,500 1,08,00,000 16,64,513 1,16,25,000 The AO has accepted

SHRI JAITESHWAR SEVA SANSTHAN,JODHPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Us By Challenging The Revisional Order.

54,204.12 was treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, which was not considered by the Ld.AO, by invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us by challenging the revisional order. 3. The Ld.AR argued and filed a paper book spanning pages 1 to 467, which is kept

SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

house property 1,95,450/- 3 Profits and gains of business or profession 13,832/- 4 Income from other sources 29, 52,113/- Total 53,54,139/- 7.8 However, the assessee has not disclosed the details of share of profit received from the partnership firm, which is otherwise exempt from tax in the hands of the assessee

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

House Property, some Interest income from Bank accounts as well as some income from certain investments and other sources. The said income and sources have been declared by me in returns of income filed with Income Tax department. I am an old lady with multiple medical problems including heart condition, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, thyroid condition and hyperlipidemia. My husband

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. ASHAPURNA INFRAPROJECT PVT. LTD., , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

Housing development Company Vs DCIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (kar) wherein the Hon'ble high Court held that the Assessing officer under Section 153A has been entrusted with the duty of bringing to tax the total income of an assessee whose case is covered by Section 153A, by even making reassessments without any fetters, if need be." 4. "The Appellant

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. ASHAPURNA INFRAPROJECT PVT. LTD., , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

Housing development Company Vs DCIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (kar) wherein the Hon'ble high Court held that the Assessing officer under Section 153A has been entrusted with the duty of bringing to tax the total income of an assessee whose case is covered by Section 153A, by even making reassessments without any fetters, if need be." 4. "The Appellant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARMER vs. PUSHP RAJ BOHRA, JALORE

The appeal of the revenue is allowed, in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Bleito, Ward-1, Barmer. Vs. Pushp Raj Bohra, M-09, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore - 343001. Pan No. Aanpb4456C Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A. Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 01.03.2025. Order Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Id. National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac/Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 08.02.2024 In Respect Of Assessment Year: 2017-18 Where The Department Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Is Justified In Facts & Law In Directing To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income, By Ignoring The Fact That Assesse & His Business Concerns Are Engaged In The Business Of Property & Real Estate Development & Huge Expenses Of Rs. 8.72 Cr. Were Incurred By Assessee On Development Of Projects To Earn Profit. 2. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Directing The Ao To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Income From Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income By Merely Following The Order Of Hon'Ble

Section) New Delhi." 2. The sole issue challenged by the revenue is that the CIT (A)/NFAC was not justified in treatment of the income from the sale of immovable properties as capital gains instead of business income and directing the AO to examine the eligibility of exemption u/s 54F/54EC before giving the order appeal effect. 3. Briefly the fact